George Bush has fired several thousand people simply because they were gay, including people in the Justice Department, and including Arabic translators. That is a fact.

Manhunt was already losing thousands of customers because of a boycott resulting from the Chairman's donations. It was a business decision to fire him. But don't expect Republicans to actually understand how the real world and free market works.

I was wondering why the McCain campaign should respond to this at all. They have no problem with it and the donor has no problem with it. It is only the rank (literally) and file of the Manhunt Group who had a problem and they made their statement. Very petty of them IMNSHO. Yet these are the same people who are up in arms because a Christian group wants its members to be Christians as a requirement to join.

And DTL why ot back up all your statements with fact and not just about the Arabic translators.

Bullshit. ^^^ No citation, again, as usual. And when a citation is provided, it to another partisan hack.

Gays really need to change their agnomen. Of the homosexuals I know, not a single one is actually gay. They must be known as bitters, or hostiles, or angries, pissed offs, or in DTL's case, straight-up bullshitters.

However, I think readers would be a lot more enthusiastic if Althouse would do more chain store, chain restaurant, blogging.

You know if Andy Warhol wasn't above painting a Campbell's Soup can, then I should think Althouse ought to be brave enough to venture out to a big-box chain store, or generic chain restaurant.....and thoroughly blog the experience.

It's about finding deep meaning in the ordinary, the everday.... Can you imagine if Andy Warhol was alive and had a daily blog ?

I've read that some 30% of gay men and women vote Republican. There is a homosexual organization called Log Cabin Republicans that has endorsed McCain, although they initially wanted Giuliani (so did I).

I think this kind of knee-jerk thing where you nave to belong to one of two parties is fairly Manichean.

In Europe you get to choose from dozens of parties, but thanks to our winner take all system, we only get two parties.

Obama has said he's against gay marriage on pp. 222-224 of the Audacity book (he also indicates he's open to further revelation on the topic, which is just to say he still wants to stoke your hopes, and thus, your votes, but he wants to be on the correct side of the weathervane, too).

When y'all are as upset over Don't Ask, Don't Tell, I'll join you on the protest line for this guy. And just for fun, let's hear y'all up in arms over the fact that in more than 30 states anyone can be fired at any time just for being queer, or for being perceived as queer. Is Manhunt a private business? Then what are y'all complaining about? This is conservatism at work.

The president fired ... as if he too an individual interest. The fact is, the president is 100% of indifferent to your sexuality and in your mind that's a crime. How dare he not recognize your fabulousness. You've chosen your party and chosen to be beholden to that party based on your own sexuality and everything follows from that. Personally, I'd rather a president have 0 interest in my sexual orientation as I have 0 interest in theirs. And any politician that that demonstrates such an interest in simply pandering.

You cannot demonstrate people were fired because they were homosexual, although they might have felt that was so. And if you cite military cases, it's not the president's policy. How many times need this be pointed out? It's policy construed by congress, not by the president.

Go on DTL, keep the hate alive. It's all you've got.

Call me whatever you wish. You're so wrong, you stink up the place with wrongness.

There's nothing wrong with a gay person being a Republican. There are several gay friendly Republicans out there (Schwarzenegger). However, McCain is pretty open about his hatred of gay people. He has promised that he will continue to fire people in his administration just for being gay.

Obama is the most pro-gay candidate to ever run for President. He supports keeping gay marriage in California legal, for example. And he favors civil unions in States were gay marriage is not legal. Not perfect, but far far far better than the status quo.

Gays can vote for McCain all they want (even if it's only going to be 17% of the gay population voting Republican for President like 2004). But if you're a CEO of a gay company, don't be surprised if the other 83% start boycotting you. That's called the free market. Get used to it.

Let's also not forget that President Bush openly favors imprisoning gay people for having sex in the privacy of their own home. And he did so in Texas while he was governor - he had gay people thrown in jail simply for having gay sex. That's why Lawrence V. Texas involved "Texas" after all.

downtownlad said..."George Bush has fired several thousand people simply because they were gay, including people in the Justice Department, and including Arabic translators. That is a fact."

Last I looked DADT was a statute, signed into law by Bill Clinton and not repealed by our current Democratic Congress.

"Manhunt was already losing thousands of customers because of a boycott resulting from the Chairman's donations. It was a business decision to fire him. But don't expect Republicans to actually understand how the real world and free market works."

If it was purely a market-based decision, why did Manhunt co-founder Larry Basile say: "It should be known that Jonathan Crutchley's donation to McCain left the entire Board in disbelief. I am disappointed that we have lost some customers, and I understand the anger. It is too bad for the web site if we lose customers, but PLEASE never refer to me as a Republican. I consider it an offense."

That doesn't sound like dispassionate economics.

And DTL, you need to at least be aware that you don't have a sense of humor. It seriously impairs your understanding. You should really keep that in mind when you decide what you want to say. Chip Ahoy is one of the best and funniest commenters on this blog, and you're just making a big show of not getting him. It's embarrassing.

My dear fellow, if you are indeed gay as you claim, is there not a penis somewhere that you can go visit to pay your respects? Or to pay for as you would normally have to do? It is a splendid Saturday afternoon. How is the weather in Thailand?

Sexual orientation. What in the hell kind of political identity is that to latch onto?

Good grief. No, just grief!

Isn't there anything greater than one's own personal sexuality as an identifier? That's truly pitiable. Pathetic things. Where's the gayety? There's only one party in the US cheesy enough to pander to that, and it a real dummkopf that takes the bait. What's the goal here anyway, the US as openly gay Disneyland or what?

My gay friends were friends precisely because they were lovely people. Were lovely people. But since Bush's elections they have, to a person, indulged open, emotional, often irrational hostility. They've pissed on every single gathering without exception, including funerals, and completely undone my desire to comport.

Ann - Please show me what statute says that Lesbians need to be fired from the Justice Department, just because they are lesbians?

Don't Ask Don't Tell is favored by repeal by Obama. McCain favors keeping it. Bush favors keeping it. If we had a Democratic (or Libertarian) President right now, it would have been gone long ago. So I absolutely can blame the current Republican Administration for keeping it in effect.

Also, Bush has violated the spirit of don't ask don't tell. It's supposed to mean DON'T ASK. It's not supposed to mean "Ask someone if they were in the theater in high school - and if they answer yes - then fire him" (true story - look it up). So sorry - you are simply WRONG here. That is a violation of the statue. Many, if not a majority, of the people dismissed in Don't ask don't tell, either never told, or WERE asked. A direct violation of the law. And I blame Bush and the bigoted military for that.

And the co-founder said that because he is trying to win back the customers. And I think he's lying by the way. This story was WIDELY supported on the gay blogs, and if you had read the reaction, many people said they were canceling their membership. So of course the co-founder is going to say whatever he needs to in order to win back those customers - and that means convincing gay people that they won't tolerate a Republican in their midst. Which is a good tactic by the way. If I found a gay friend was a Republican, I would instantly dismiss them as a friend. There's nothing wrong with that, in fact I think the majority of gay people probably do the same thing. You can be fiscally conservative and for a strong military, etc., but it doesn't make sense to support a party whose PRIMARY mission (as we've seen in the 2004 election) is to demonize and marginalize gay people.

"Gays really need to change their agnomen. Of the homosexuals I know, not a single one is actually gay. They must be known as bitters, or hostiles, or angries, pissed offs, or in DTL's case, straight-up bullshitters." - Chip Ahoy

Ha ha Ha. That statement is so funny Ann. Sorry I didn't laugh and get it the first time. Yes - what a sense of humor he has.

Ann Althouse said..."Last I looked DADT was a statute, signed into law by Bill Clinton and not repealed by our current Democratic Congress."

HR 1246 was introduced to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell -- more properly 10 U.S.C. § 654, but opponents hate to refer to it as such because doing so tacitly admits that it's a law, which in turn would rob them of the ability to claim that the President's doing something wrong, as DTL ably demonstrates -- shortly after the 110th Congress convened, and was immediately thereafter interred in Committee, where it hasn't been touched (according to LOC) since March 2007. So it's not that they've forgotten about it, either, they just aren't interested. It speaks volumes about how much Congressional Democrats really care about this that it takes a lower priority than dozens of bills redesignating postal facilities.

Don't distort my words Wurly. I said I don't care if YOU don't leave a functioning society to the next generation, because I won't have descendents.

I was referring to global warming. I actually have a very low carbon footprint (never owned a car, etc.), and I favor government action to reduce global warming emissions.

You, on the other hand, don't give a rats ass about global warming and are doing nothing to stop it.

So if the world ends up warming up and getting destroyed because of YOUR actions, I really don't worry about it at all, because I'll be dead by the time disaster comes. On what rational basis, should I worry about it?

I have to admit that it seems less and less worth the time to engage with DTL when he gets started on this subject. Perhaps it's time for him to join Freder on the ignore list. That'd be a shame for someone who can and does often contribute usefully, but his 1:41 PM comment seals the deal; the pseudo-argument about why we can in fact blame the Bush administration for DADT is very Freder-esque.

Some folks here need to learn not to feed the trolls - or at least, not to feed trollish behavior. You can't win this argument with DTL, he's in his own little world with fingers firmly in ears shouting "la la la you all hate gay people," so why engage in the first place? I think I shall cease doing so.

Titus is this blog's best gay stereotype and he can be dismissive (and hilariously so) of certain groups of people including fat people, lousy dressers, bridge & tunnel people, people who don'tlive in Manhattan, etc. That gay people are close-minded in some ways is not news.

Simon - It's pointless for the Democrats to try and repeal DADT, as Bush has vowed to veto it. Also, it's not certain that there even enough votes to get a majority, as there are plenty of bigot Democrats (especially in the South) who wouldn't vote for this.

You need a Democratic President to repeal this, as he'll be able to use the bully pulpit and take the heat to get a repeal passed.

And Bush has the power right now to at least tell the military to STOP ASKING about people's sexual orientation, to stop searching facebook and friendster to find out if people are gay, etc.

DTL: "Ann - Please show me what statute says that Lesbians need to be fired from the Justice Department, just because they are lesbians?"

Are you saying GWB is enforcing a policy of that kind? Your link doesn't support it. It's an NPR story about ONE woman who lost her job and the issue of why she was fired is in dispute. "Several people interviewed by the inspector general's staff described the case to NPR and said they came away with the impression that the Attorney General's office decided not to renew Leslie Hagen's contract because of the talk about her sexual orientation."

DTL: "Don't Ask Don't Tell is favored by repeal by Obama. McCain favors keeping it. Bush favors keeping it. If we had a Democratic (or Libertarian) President right now, it would have been gone long ago. So I absolutely can blame the current Republican Administration for keeping it in effect."

McCain isn't in the current Republican Administration. If there is to be change, it must begin with Congress. Democrats are in charge. Talk is cheap. Let's see them act.

Is Manhunt a private business? Then what are y'all complaining about? This is conservatism at work.

I don't think you'll catch any conservative here saying that Manhunt needs to be shut down by the government or sued. That's the big difference. Now, maybe if I were a gay conservative, I'd feel differently. I just might want someone to have my back against the rabid left-wing gays like DTL.

I always wonder how accurate the 30% number Kirby Olson mentioned is. Usually you hear 25%. Anyway, they are effectively silenced and/or intimidated... the *ultimate* outcasts. Or maybe that's black conservatives? Either way you don't hear either of them whining too much. Shows character in this day and age.

DTL, you really do have a cognitive disorder. I didn't dump anybody, they dumped themselves. I didn't dump all my gay friends either, I simply chose not to comport with anybody unlovely. Got that, Stupid? I have no reason to put myself in the presence of undelightful people. I don't allow it. Having made that decision, nearly all my gay friends have dismissed themselves and my social circle had diminished considerably, and I'm altogether better off because of it. I really cannot deal with the hateful vibes, such as yours. I must not allow people to drag my lighthearted delightful personality into their bleak dark worlds of their own constructions, where everything they hear that doesn't fit is automatically a lie. (And it is a lie, to their own constructions.) Bad for the psyche. Very bad to my own creativity.

Just making sure--I don't in any way want you to take that as me saying you're a whiner. You're just about the best sport of anyone on the left I've run across. Maybe Madisonman is a close contender...

Chip Ahoy is the hater. Refuses to associate with gay people. Right from the horse's mouth.

Just replace "gay" with "black" in his last post and it is sooooo obvious.

I didn't dump anybody, they dumped themselves. I didn't dump all my black friends either, I simply chose not to comport with anybody unlovely. Got that, Stupid? I have no reason to put myself in the presence of undelightful people. I don't allow it. Having made that decision, nearly all my black friends have dismissed themselves and my social circle had diminished considerably, and I'm altogether better off because of it. I really cannot deal with the hateful vibes, such as yours. I must not allow people to drag my lighthearted delightful personality into their bleak dark worlds of their own constructions, where everything they hear that doesn't fit is automatically a lie. (And it is a lie, to their own constructions.) Bad for the psyche. Very bad to my own creativity."

Chip: They must be known as bitters, or hostiles, or angries, pissed offs, or in DTL's case, straight-up bullshitters.

DTL is self-loathing and mentally ill. Do not make the same mistake I did by assuming he's representative of gays. He's not. In fact, at times it appears he is deliberately attempting to give them a bad rep. Its easier to understand DTL as a closeted conservative who hates gays.

If Bush has specific authorization to invade Iraq from Congress, it's "illegal" because it isn't what the left wants him to do.

If he ignores Don't Ask Don't Tell, a Congressional statute, it's legal because it's what the left wants him to do.

If he wants to monitor foreign spies without a warrant, then it's illegal, even if the opinion (dicta, granted) of judges on the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review is that it's perfectly permissible. (In Re Sealed Case No. 02-001). Because the left doesn't like it.

If an legal adviser issues an opinion about what the law is, and that opinion is objectionable to the left, then expressing the opinion is a crime, even if there's not a single word in either international or U.S. law saying so.

And so on. Laws are not a matter of statute, court opinion, treaties, or anything else except the whims of Downtownlad and his allies.

If you disagree, Ann, then you're an evil war criminal, and deserve what the Nazis got at Nuremburg.

downtownlad said..."It's pointless for the Democrats to try and repeal DADT, as Bush has vowed to veto it. Also, it's not certain that there even enough votes to get a majority, as there are plenty of bigot Democrats (especially in the South) who wouldn't vote for this."

This is a defense of why they've failed, not why they haven't tried. They have introduced and passed several bills that the President threatened to veto; some were signed, some weren't, but they get the credit for trying. Refusing to even try because the President might veto it - refusing to bring the bill to the floor and vote - is a weak excuse by weak people for failure to act. As Ann said above, talk is cheap.

"And Bush has the power right now to at least tell the military to STOP ASKING about people's sexual orientation, to stop searching facebook and friendster to find out if people are gay, etc."

I suppose I can see how you'd think that if you think that the statute actually says "don't ask don't tell," but that serves only to illustrate the distorting effects of abstracting from what the statute actually says. It seems to me that the statute quite firmly obliges the President and his administration to act to sever homosexuals from the armed forces, although I agree with you that as a matter of policy whatever room is left for Presidential and military discretion should cut against letting anyone go or finding a reason to do so.

Fen - since you don't know any gay people, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

I'm representative of at least 90% of gay people out there. Read the comments on any gay blog (Towleroad for example) and you'll find tons of comments just like mine.

You really don't get out in the real world much, do you? That is a real question. Do you ever even talk to non-conservatives and try and understand where they are coming from? Have you ever made even one attempt to find out how gay people felt about the anti-gay comments and attacks from this President and how dehumanizing and degrading they were?

Just because 99% of Ann's commenters are conservative, doesn't mean that 99% of gays think the same. Actually - I have a hunch that 90% of gays wouldn't even come near this site, because they wouldn't even want to interact with the commenters here.

I don't mind it. I enjoy the sparring. But don't for a second think that my views of unusual in the gay community. They're the norm.

"knox said... Beth,Just making sure--I don't in any way want you to take that as me saying you're a whiner. You're just about the best sport of anyone on the left I've run across. Maybe Madisonman is a close contender"

Beth is one lady who is definitely a sport. But definately not a sporting lady. Those are two different things and let's not get them confused.

I just wish she would get rid of that frankfurter dog on her avatar. That freaks me out.

I think you'll find that this is actually way off-base - I don't think most commenters here think of themselves as conservatives. It would be interesting to do a poll, but you'd have to find some way of preventing people from entering twice because the Anti-Althousiana have an obvious interest in skewing the results.

Simon - McCain favors keeping DADT. Obama favors repealing it. Pretty simple if you ask me. And it is not crazy for gays to take that into account. In fact, on almost every issue concerning gay rights, McCain opposes them and Obama supports them.

You really think gay people should just ignore that and focus on other issues? Black people should have just ignored the Civil Rights Act in 1964 and instead voted based on the candidates stance on Vietnam?

I'm not an Obama supporter. I'm probably voting for Barr (who has at least apologized for his anti-gay past). But vote for the Republicans? No - never again.

"I think it's a fundamental tenet of our party to be pro-life but that does not mean we exclude people from our party that are pro-choice. We just have a--albeit strong--but just it's a disagreement. And I think Ridge is a great example of that. Far more so than Bloomberg, because Bloomberg is pro-gay rights, pro, you know, a number of other issues." - John McCain

Daryl - The hateful remarks are now enshrined in over half the state constitutions in the country. Study history. Those amendments only got momentum when Bush endorsed them and the Rove machine helped place them on the state ballots.

Bush also favors sending gay people to jail for having gay sex. There's a quote from his governor's race in 1994 endorsing the sodomy laws. I don't have time to look it up, but he's never renounced that statement.

Simon - Most commenters are very conservative, because they bully away those who disagree with them. Can't even count how many times people have told me not to post here, and they do the same to any liberal who posts on here as well. I don't care that 99% are conservative. I can hold my own.

Donna Pence said..."[downtownlad said that George Bush fired 4,988 gay people from the military between 2000 and 2006.] Wow, I'm surprised Bush has the time to do all of these firings?"

Although the President may not personally fire people, s/he is responsible for the conduct of his subordinates, and they are accountable to the electorate through him (or her). this is a necessary corollary of the Unitary Executive doctrine (which this administration has, I think correctly, embraced), as I explained in more detail in two posts earlier this year, Power flows down, responsibility flows up (01/14/08) and The President's Brief (3/13/08). (I would also argue that despite the more pragmatic judicial modesty in the face of administrative expertise in which it's usually couched, this aspect of unitary executive is the formalist core of Chevron deference, see 467 U.S. at 865.)

Let's also not forget that hate crimes against gay people are up significantly in the Bush Administration. and the Bush Administration doesn't even keep track of hate crimes against gays from many states, so the number is even higher.

Bush also refused to serve liverwurst at the state dinner for Merkel last July. Now the refusal to let liverwurst touch your lips is not a sure indicator of homophobia because as we know our gracious hostess is on record as being a wurstaphobe.But it does give one pause. One can only wonder and ask what does it all mean?

downtownlad said..."Most commenters are very conservative, because they bully away those who disagree with them."

That seems much more of a liberal trait. Boy, you've gotten yourself turned around, haven't you; it happens to some extent on conservative blogs - but it's endemic in the leftospehere. It doesn't happen here, period. I can't think of any instance in the years I've read and commented here that someone's been pushed out because they disagree - and the times you've been told to beat it are no counterexample. You're told to get lost when you're being disagreeable, not because you disagree.

"McCain favors keeping DADT. Obama favors repealing it. Pretty simple if you ask me. And it is not crazy for gays to take that into account."

If all you're saying is that they can reasonably take it into account, I agree.

"You really think gay people should just ignore that and focus on other issues?"

I think they should focus on issues that matter giving those issues appropriate weight and importance. Which is to say that yes, they should focus on other issues.

I also think you're drastically overreading McCain's statement about Bloomberg, but engaging in any detail on that point would be the kind of troll-baiting I said above I was done with.

downtownlad said..."[T]he Bush Administration doesn't even keep track of hate crimes against gays from many states, so the number is even higher."

I don't see why it would. Hate crimes are almost purely criminal law questions - and so should properly be deemed a state law issue. Even assuming Congress has the power to legislate on them, it's very dubious that it should, other than pursuant to its federal enclave jurisdiction.

Something majorly wrong with being a gay Republican, since the Republican party HATES gay people.

Protecting and holding onto your private property, including your own earnings, is undoubtedly the best and most fail-safe way to ensure your freedom. Insofar as the republican party works toward those goals; and the democrats do everything they can to defeat those goals; and insofar as the democrats do nothing but feed gays cheap lipservice, bullshit like "don't ask don't tell," and worthless hate crime legislation, I would question that logic.

Minorities need to wake up already. The democrats don't give a shit about you (neither do the republicans but you knew that). But guess what, at least the republicans aren't blowing a bunch of smoke up your ass while collecting your money and votes.

Middle Class Guy said..."[downtownlad said that 'Bush has fired thousands of people simply because they were gay. That is an indisputable FACT.'] It is an indisputable lie. A bright and shining lie. A glaring lie."

It seems like splitting hairs to say that those separated under § 654 weren't separated just because they were gay, but rather because they were gay and in the military. Their presence in the military could be reasonably be thought of as the jurisdictional predicate for the statute's applicability and their being gay the basis for separation under the statute, in which case, DTL can reasonably assert that they were fired simply because they were gay.

Well then what downtownlad needs now is love sweet love. No not just for some but for everyone.

And then he may find somebody kind to help and understand himSomeone who is just like him and needs a gentle hand toGuide him alongSo, maybe he'll see him thereHe can forget all his anger, forget all his bitter neurotic anxiety-ridden personality-disordered cares and goDowntownlad, things'll be great when you're withDowntownlad, don't wait a minute more,Downtownlad, everyone's waiting for you.

I can't remember where I got the percentage of 30% for gay Republicans.

If you Wikipedia Log Cabin Republicans the page talks about how they definitely preferred McCain to Huckabee or Romney.

I don't know if that's an endorsement, but they voted for him in the primaries, apparently.

But it didn't say how many people were in the organization.

They basically look back to the origins of the Republican party with Lincoln, and see it differently than the jaundiced view that has smeared the Republican party by the near-sighted far left.

I think many other minority people see the Republican viewpoint from the LONG view. Or at least those who vote Republican, do.

It's hard to assess how many minority people vote Republican.

With blacks it's only 10-15%.

But with Asians it's about 50% (numbers vary).

And there are many Hispanics who vote Republican.

Howard Dean started screaming again the other day and said that the Republican party is the white party (then why isn't he in it?). However, there are lots of minority people in it, too.

If you go back to Lincoln's day, the Republicans were the party that were willing to die to free the slaves.

The Democrats were willing to look the other way, and see the south as an internal matter (much as they see Iraq, or Afghanistan, or almost everything else).

The Battle Hymn of the Republicans, written by Julia Ward Howe at Lincoln's request, is still the party's standard.

"Let us die to make men holy, let us die to make men free."

The song IS a bit crazy, but if you were living in the south, and you were a slave, well, perhaps you'd be willing to vote for such a party, if you could vote.

So it was the Democrats who screwed up Reconstruction by insisting that the northern armies leave under the Rutherford Hayes administration as part of the trade-off since Tilden's had won a plurality of votes.

Without the army down there, de facto slavery went back to creepiness as usual under the Democrats who always look the other way, and every kind of right was squelched for blacks until the 1960s. They especially didn't want the blacks to vote for the Republicans, so they kept them from voting for close to a hundred years.

Today, Democrats want to give handouts to minorities, but they don't grant them equal status, or true respect.

Republicans do grant this.

Always have.

Condoleeza Rice is just part of that. But she's in because she's competent, not because she's black.

Most people on the left are voting for Barack because they feel sorry for him because of his race, not because they think he's the most competent leader America has to offer. You always get the mantra, well, this will right all those wrongs.

Actually, it just perpetuates them.

You ought to vote for the most competent leader, regardless of their race, or gender.

There was a fascinating article in Out about Manhunt. I actually know the guys that started it. Before Manhunt they had a ton of 1-500 phone numbers.

The article describes how Manhunt is a website that has one of the largest number of monthly hits of any website. It also talks about how many guys stay home and just surf Manhunt and don't go out as much anymore. The moral was that it is antisocial-that is what the article stated. Also, in many cities gay clubs are not nearly as big as they were years ago and the article attributed it to everyone staying home on the internet.

FYI-I don't have a manhunt membership. I don't have time to be messaging someone back and forth. Too much work. I would rather walk out my loft, sling my pussy and do it in an alley-or somewhere like that.

Why oh why does Chip Ahoy hate gay people? Look how closeted he is. Chip Ahoy obviously likes to suck cock, but rather than accept his true self, he chooses to denigrate others.

Where does someone start with this type of moronic idiocy. Oh wait. It's DTL afterall, the human nerf-football of the Althouse commentators stable. Hey, DTL. What's the matter? Did they boot you from E-Harmony again?

You always prove that leftists/liberals like yourself tend to be the dumbest, shallowest non-thinkers on the face of the earth. What better description to fit the budding achievement of your shallow, non-thinking life. Your arguments are surface fluff, so I'll tell you what. You send me your address and I'll ship you some exfoliation cream to get the dingies off you, okay?

Now that I've had the displeasure of reading your quaint conspiracy theories regarding GWB and homosexuals, and as speaking as a completely layman with respect to psychiatric matters, I'd have to say, you really need serious help. You're "choice" of lifestyle and sexual association have left you "wanting" for not only a clue, but for some deep, inward reflection on what a misbegotten sot you've become.

One of the 550 or 500 number they registered was 1-550-PIGG. Another one was 1-550-JOXx.

No lie.

I did call those lines for awhile. I was living in Boston and knew the owners and they always gave me a free access code. I know diva-NOT. I could be on those lines for hours. I would never meet anyone though because I didn't think they would be hot. Some of them gave amazing phone though. Those Boston accents can be mighty hot on a late night phone call. Instant hard on.

Also, my take on the politics of gays-at least my circle. They don't follow it much. We never talk about it ever. None of them read political blogs. When we go out to dinner, drinks or travel for the weekend they never bring it up. They are just into other things. Many of my friends didn't even vote in the primaries. The ones that did vote voted for Hilary-from my friends.

The whole DTL thing is a distraction from the real issue, to use a bit of Obama-speak myself.

The scary thing is the poison of partisanship and identity politics continues to spread so that people risk their standing in organizations if they "donate or vote for the WRONG PEOPLE".

I imagine that what the people at "Mansearch" did to Crutchley is little different than what a white militia would do if they found one of their survival gear merchants was a Hillary supporter. Or like the retaliatory blacklists radical left Hollywood Jewish producers and players have had in effect over the years on conservative union crew and SAG members - if they publicly "out" their conservative beliefs..

This is different than patronage jobs, where we expect cushy government jobs to go to the winning party and the whole corrupt "pay to play" system both Parties run. Or the creation of a new "all-wise" ambassador or lawyer dressed in black robes to a job for life - based on their fundraising skills.

Now partisan politics is continuing it's spread into the academic, non-profit & private job sector. And firing and hiring by the worst of the partisans of either Party more and more, on the most doctrinaire matters of ideology.

And that is not good for America. And that is not good for the free speech rights of employees and Board members. Outside traditional patronage jobs, what a person believes in outside work or who they donate their money to should be considered their Constitutional Right, free of workplace retaliation.

Also from my experience as a professional gay gays will not give up their manhunt membership because one of the owners donated to Mccain. Their manhunt membership is probably one of the most cherished items in their purse and nothing will force them to give it up.

Also, when I talk about bridge and tunnel and heavy people and others I do it in jest. I think bridge and tunnel people are hot. Usually hotter than NYC gays who tend to be professional gays. I don't want to do it with a professsional gay. Hello? I am orginally from Waunakee Wisconsin and no matter how much Prada I am soaking in I am still a cheesehead.

Speaking of Prada I purchased a little blouse today for dinner tonight. It is delighful. And it's a medium. And if you girls know Prada you know that fitting into a medium is diva.

It is red with white on the collar and arms which accentuate my guns. I am looking at it right now and getting a little hard. It feels amazing. Of course it is athletic fit. My friends say me model it at the store and the reviews were 10's across the boards. Wrap it up!

You're representative of the freakshow, a decided minority. Most gays are hard-working, productive, highly successful, and therefore conservative, and they roll their eyes and cringe whenever they see or hear gays like you.

Beth sez When y'all are as upset over Don't Ask, Don't Tell, I'll join you on the protest line for this guy. And just for fun, let's hear y'all up in arms over the fact that in more than 30 states anyone can be fired at any time just for being queer, or for being perceived as queer. Is Manhunt a private business? Then what are y'all complaining about? This is conservatism at work.

I'm not sure who cares and I'm not a spokesman for conservatism, but wouldn't the correct (inverse) analogy be for someone from a hetero dating site be fired for contributing to Obama? (Or a gay dating site, for that matter.)

As Beth points out (frequently), southern Dems tend to be more socially conservative. McCain hardly fits into that category.

I doubt it matters much who is elected either way, as far as gay rights goes.

blake's mostly right - it doesn't matter too much for gay people who gets elected president. Clinton left us with DADT and yes, the Democrats in Congress could change it and they haven't managed to. Polls seem to show most voters would support that change, but there you go.

McCain's answer to the marriage question tonight tells me he's all about federalism until it creates an outcome he doesn't like, then he'd be willing to go with a federal amendment. So, no, I won't be voting for him. I'd rather a weak-ass passive hands-off approach from Obama then to put my name in the column for someone who actively works against my interests. So I guess that's where it matters - perhaps only to the level of symbolism, but in our two-party system sometimes symbolism is all you get.

Trooper, look more closely: there are TWO weenie dogs in that picture. My Pee Wee and his litter mate, Louie.

When I clicked on my icon to look at it, it took me to my info page, and there's all sorts of stuff there now. I made up a vegan crab boil recipe for some vegan pals and they put it on their blog, and now it shows up on my listing.

Just to be clear: I am not vegan. Still liberal, but meat eating, you bet.

The original post touches on what has become a growing and pervasive problem in the US: the personal or professional demonization by interest groups of members who have an opinion which differs from the official dogma. Look at Joe Lieberman. First the Dems tried to oust him from the Senate for the crime of supporting the Iraq war. Now I read that as soon as the Dems don't need his precious vote anymore, they will strip him of his chairmanship. If a Senator cannot vote his true conscience why bother having elected officials to begin with?

All of these organizations require a fealty to their holy cause or else, whether it is the democratic party, the teachers union, or in this case Jonathan Crutchley. Reading the comments by the "true believers" shows that these organizations have succeeded in indoctrinating too many impressionable people, turning the particular group into a bunch of sorry, misunderstood victims. (Many groups on the right do the same thing, they are just not as quick to jump into my head) Somehow the thread morphed into a "who did what to whom?" contest. At least Everyone here doesn't preach to the same choir.

You know what's funny about how DTL drivels on and on in his acute gay frenzy about the injustices done to homosexuals? Is that he completely neglects the reality that is homosexuality. I spent the better part of a week with several homosexual couples in a B&B from all over the world and I had no problems in understanding that in our long discussions that they experienced the same trials and tribulations outside the fact that they are homosexuals. Even the B&B owners were gay, and two of the nicest, kindest, and gentlest people I've had the privilege of knowing and meeting. So much so, I've adopted both of them as my brothers.

I'm not a homophobe by any stretch of the imagination, but I'm not a homophile either. I've had to develop two new words to describe my characterizations of homosexuals and homosexuality; homotolerant and homodiscriminant. Of which I am both. I choose to be tolerant of certain homosexuals above others and I choose to be discriminant about that which homosexuality displays to me. These homosexuals were normal, everyday folks, not the faggy, flamboyant, debasing anti-normative, anti-cultural attention whores that exist in the rest of the rainbow niche nation of homosexuality.

Reactionary, histrionically, epileptic homosexuals like DTL are the antithesis of who real homosexuals are. DTL, you and people like you give homos a bad name. You look for the boogey-man under your bed and all you end up seeing is dust bunnies, but even then you try to demonize them as homophobes that don't really exist. Get a grip on reality because the shit you are shoveling still stinks of the lies you tell. You would be shunned by the people I've been with all week as a fool. That is the reality of you.

If a Senator cannot vote his true conscience why bother having elected officials to begin with?

You don't have to go too far than the Profiles in Courage Award, given allegedly to a politician or figure which displays amazing courage, often of detrimental political nature to oneself.

Lieberman would be a shoo-in, but he won't be awarded it, for the same reason Murtha was.

I like and respect Caroline Kennedy, but it seems a Republican only is awarded it when he goes against his Party, whereas the Democrats are awarded it because of a perceived "unpopular" cultural position.

If that definition of courage was accurate, GW Bush would've been on the very shortlist.

What infuriates the enforcers of gay orthodoxy is that some of us are pragmatic enough to disregard their silly essentialism with regard to what they try to tell us about partisan politics and gay issues.

What's ironic, though, is that while the gay activist organizations are always calling Republicans hateful because many of them don't support gay rights, you won't hear a word condemning the black pastors who regularly invoke anti-gay rhetoric, because when the Democratic interest groups clash, gays are guaranteed to lose. And then there's the matter of foreign policy, where Democrats routinely try to appease those regimes where gays are imprisoned or executed for the crime of being gay. But why should we be surprised by that? After all, many of today's Democrats (including some clueless gays I have known) speak admiringly about Castro and Che, whose track record on gay issues is, shall we say, rather undesirable.